@@CAMphotography_ Same. I have a feeling the 16, 23 and 56 will be nice. I remember I used the 30mm sigma on my older Canon M50 ii and I liked the Canon EFM 32mm a LOT better. But the 16 and 56 were nice.
@@mariaalbi1886 it’ll probably be similar quality tbh. I stand by what I said in the initial video that this lens is for hobbyists and beginners. But I’m looking at it from the view of a portrait and wedding photographer and it just doesn’t give me personally what I need for that
I have this lens on my R10 and the sharpness is excellent , much better than kit lens at the edges , no problem with CA with lens correction applied , RAW editing works very well in DPP even without lens data , AF and MF work very well , lack of IS may be a disadvantage but overall I consider this lens a worthy upgrade to the canon kit lens .
I totally agree with this sentiment. I find that the lack of contrast between subject and background really makes this lens frustrating to enjoy for photography. I'm purchasing a EF-S 17-55 mm in hopes it does better. This could be because of the R7 sensor being so demanding of it's lenses. Excited to see if Canon can make an RF 17-55 mm that works well
Is it soft because of hardware or firmware? Newbie photog here so don't squash me for asking. Genuinely curious. Just wondering if a firmware update might fix this or is it a 'glass' or AF with Canon problem?
@@RobFike good question. I can’t confidently 100% say if it was one or the other. I assumed it was a glass quality issue. A few people have had that problem
@@CAMphotography_ I only ask because mine just came in, and I haven't run tests yet. If it isn't an 'across the board' problem then it would be a glass issue most likely, right?
@@RobFike most likely. Also I’m looking at it from the perspective of high quality wedding photography. I’ve seen a lot of hobbyist say they absolutely love it and see no wrong. With weddings I’m very particular on how an image looks SOOC and I just wasn’t getting that with this lens
I agree the lens is definitely soft for the r7 but I also feel it’s from that sensor being so demanding could be wrong. Currently considering renting an r10 to see how it renders. None the less great video
@@MarcusTim0thy thanks. I’m using canon r7 shooting 4k fine and 35mm 1.8. You can see the 18-50 video quality in this video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mcBNN70q2SI.htmlsi=psuQjfbGnQ9kD3_a
Too bad to hear it's soft. It's probably fine for video that's why I was considering it for an Fx30 I recently got. To be fair I have a 24-70 Art full frame lens and it is g-dam heavy. Even though it's sharper it doesn't make a lot of sense putting it on an APS-C camera. I understand for photocentric pro shooters you don't want a sub par zoom. Problem though 24mm becomes 36mm with the crop that's not wide enough for interior establish shot or large interior group shots that you can't backup enough. Primes might be the answer until you introduce dust on the sensor or miss a shot while swapping lenses.
@@petercofrancesco9812 yeah it definitely is fine for video from my tests. Autofocus is a little slow but manageable. I’m sticking with my primes at the moment. Hopefully another apsc lens will come through soon that’s higher quality for stills
Fair, early reviews is that it’s not the sharpest tool in the tool box. I’m waiting for a Canon version (who knows when that will arrive but happy to adapt to my R7 for now)
@@CAMphotography_ Im a hobbyist, thanks for your explanations. Thinking in R7 + sigma 18-50 f2.8 + sigma 30 or 56 1.4 that will be released end year.. Cant find nothing better at this price range, for general use I might use the zoom, and if demanded to a portrait session I use the 1.4 one. What do you think? I pretend to buy the gear and lens by end year at about 2000$
@@JonesVitox I think that’s a good lineup for you being a hobbyist. I wanna try the primes at the end of the year also. 1.4 will be super creamy as long as it’s decently sharp. Definitely go with that. If it doesn’t work. Return it and try something else 🤷🏽♂️
Wow! This is a shock to hear. I have had the Sony version glued onto my A6600 for the past couple of years. The Sony version is incredibly sharp - no, I am not exaggerating. Many reviews will corroborate this. This is disappointing. I am really very curious to know why the Canon version is even remotely soft. Hope it isn't a Canon factor.
@bl8550 I have an a6700 with the 18-50 and at wide open its sharp but I have noticed the sweet spot is f/4. I considered the Tamron 17-70 and even the FE 28-75 but the Sigma to be that small and that good at least on the E mount side is fantastic for APS-C users.
@@CAMphotography_ I always think about renting but it always ends up being at least $100 and I feel like I may as well by it and sell it for about the same amount if I'd rented.
@@31filmz68 hey great question. I’m interested in the 16 1.4 prime and also the 23 1.4. I’m hoping they will be better quality sharpness than the 18-50
@@JamesMears76 try it for yourself. I still believe it’s ok for hobbyists. I’m looking from the perspective of wedding photography. It may work for you
@@Whoistheboss546 people who know how to use a camera. I’m not the only one that does it. It’s a false narrative that weddings can ONLY be shot on full frame. If you know what you’re doing you can shoot on a micro 4/3 lol. Don’t be a sheep and listen to those people that say you can’t do something
i do. and i am doing. i am using R7+sigma18-35 art lens for weddings since 2 years. you can check wedding films shot using this set up on my channel. www.youtube.com/@fairyteller5757 . all recent 10 videos shot using this setup.
@@johnkeithborrel5819 that’s a common thing. Some lead shooters will only accept second shooters if they have full frame. It’s strange. Then they say the camera doesn’t make the picture the photographer does. If that’s the case why is the camera a deciding factor 😐
